[Python-Dev] "Unstable" is an ambiguous word...

Jacob HallÚn jacob@strakt.com
Tue, 09 Apr 2002 14:44:52 +0200

Guido van Rossum wrote:
> ...
>>/ There may not be ONE way out -- but maybe TWO tracks would do,
/>>/ instead.  On the stable track, releases that could break previously
/>>/ correct code would be highly infrequent; on the experimental ones,
/>>/ releases would be frequent -- ideally frequent enough that people
/>>/ wouldn't go to CVS unless they're interested in contributing to the
/>>/ internals, but could feel they're "on top of the leading-edge
/>>/ RELEASE" (aka the experimental-track release).
> This also sounds similar to what Neil proposes.
> So maybe we're closing in to consensus: significantly slower "major"
> releases (like 2.3), more effort in "bugfix" releases (like 2.2.1) and
> more of those.  And guess what, Anthony Baxter has offered to be the
> 2.2.2 releasemeister.

I like this.
I would also like to add that there is a benefit with the multiple numbering scheme.
The various distribution makers will most probably build packages for both the
stable and the experimental versions, allowing people to easily maintain
both versions on their machines. With the current situation, most distribution
builders will skip the alpha, beta and rc versions, thus decreasing the
population that will actually test them.

Jacob HallÚn